Equality between the Father and Son

[placebofactor]

Did the Father have the power to raise or elevate his Son Jesus to the same rank as himself? Let us call the highest rank in heaven "the rank of God."

Hebrews 1:8, The Father said of his Son Jesus, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom." Verse 9, "Therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of Gladness above thy fellows." Verse 10, "And thou LORD (the Father calling his Son Jehovah), in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of your hands."

And is there the same degree of likeness, similarity, and dignity between the Father and Son? If so, then the Son can be called God because it's the Father's prerogative. And if it is the Father's privilege, who are we to deny it?

[NeutralZone]

Explain to me what you think this 3 in 1 God means? I will wait for your response.

Come on now, placebofactor. What else could I possibly be referring to besides Christendom's trinity god in which the Father (Jehovah), the Son (Jesus Christ) and Jehovah's Holy Spriit are supposedly three different persons who are co-equal and co-eternal and combined into a single god? In fact, you used part of the Trinitarian argument in the title of your thread when you claimed the Father and the Son are equal. Scripture says they are not.

I beg to differ that the Holy Spirit is just the force of the Father, as in Mat 12:31-32, speaks of any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. If one blasphemes the Father (Rev13:6) and will be forgiven, why to blaspheme the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven? That implied that the Holy Spirit isn't just the force of the Father but a separate distinct person of the Trinity. Bible lexicon defined "blasphemes", in Greek "- blasph"me" as to speak of impious irreverence to God.

And in verse 32, whoever speaks a word against (blasphemes) the Son of Man shall also be forgiven, and as Mounce defined that term it as an irreverence to God, to me that supports the concepts of Trinity mentioned in Mat 28:19.


G987 (Mounce)
- blasph"me
34x: to defame, revile, slander, Mat 27:39; to speak of God or divine things in terms of impious irreverence, to blaspheme, Mat 9:3; Mat 26:65.

Mat 12:31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
Mat 12:32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven..

Differ to your heart's content, Capbook. It doesn't change the fact that the holy spirit is a possession of Jehovah God and not a person. Jehovah uses his holy spirit to get things done, as indicated at Genesis 1:2.

"The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

The reason why blaspheming against Jehovah God's holy spirit is unforgivable is because the person who does that type of blasphemy is denying the fact that Jehovah deserves the credit for whatever miraculous deed was accomplished. It was Jehovah's power aka his active force aka his holy spirit that Jehovah sent forth to accomplish that particular miracle.

[NeutralZone]

I beg to differ that the Holy Spirit is just the force of the Father, as in Mat 12:31-32, speaks of any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. If one blasphemes the Father (Rev13:6) and will be forgiven, why to blaspheme the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven? That implied that the Holy Spirit isn't just the force of the Father but a separate distinct person of the Trinity. Bible lexicon defined "blasphemes", in Greek "- blasph"me" as to speak of impious irreverence to God.

If a person who claims to know the Scriptures and doesn't understand the difference between the Holy Spirit being called "He" not "It", or by changing "He" to "That one," they don't need to be teaching. The corrupt N.W.T. changed "He" to "that one" the only Bible in the history of the world that changes "He" to "that one." The Watchtower rejects 1 John 5:7 because it's only in a few manuscripts, yet they change He to "that one" and it's not in any manuscripts. They also changed John 1:1, another intentional corruption. And they add "Other" in Colossians 1:16, to strip Jesus of his divinity, claiming he was created. Don't talk about blasphemy to me, you'd better read Revelation 22 about adding and removing words from God's word.

The reason why the holy spirit is referred to as "he" in Trinitarian Bible translations is because those particular translators are attempting to give the impression that God's holy spirit is a person--which it is not. It is a possession, something that Jehovah God owns and controls.

Nowhere in the scriptures will you ever see the Holy Spirit doing anything on its own. It is only mentioned doing something when Jehovah the Father sends it to do his will.

Additionally, nowhere in the scriptures will you ever see it say that Jesus controls the holy spirit. Only Jehovah controls it, because it's his active force/his power that he sends forth to get things done. Jesus himself said as much. Notice Jesus' own words below.

Berean Literal Bible -- (John 14:26
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and will bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you." (John 14:25-26)


There's nothing wrong with referring to Jehovah's Holy Spirit as "That one." The only people upset about it are Trinitarians who insist on giving personhood to God's Holy Spirit/active force so they can continue pretending that Jehovah's holy spirit is the third person of their non-existent trinity god.

[NeutralZone]

I beg to differ that the Holy Spirit is just the force of the Father, as in Mat 12:31-32, speaks of any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. If one blasphemes the Father (Rev13:6) and will be forgiven, why to blaspheme the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven? That implied that the Holy Spirit isn't just the force of the Father but a separate distinct person of the Trinity. Bible lexicon defined "blasphemes", in Greek "- blasph"me" as to speak of impious irreverence to God.

If a person who claims to know the Scriptures and doesn't understand the difference between the Holy Spirit being called "He" not "It", or by changing "He" to "That one," they don't need to be teaching. The corrupt N.W.T. changed "He" to "that one" the only Bible in the history of the world that changes "He" to "that one." The Watchtower rejects 1 John 5:7 because it's only in a few manuscripts, yet they change He to "that one" and it's not in any manuscripts. They also changed John 1:1, another intentional corruption. And they add "Other" in Colossians 1:16, to strip Jesus of his divinity, claiming he was created. Don't talk about blasphemy to me, you'd better read Revelation 22 about adding and removing words from God's word.

Don't go complaining to Capbook, because he/she can't help you in light of the Capbook is as confused as you are.

FYI: John 1:1 has three independent clauses, meaning all three portions separated by commas can stand alone as separate sentences. Notice John 1:1 below from a Trinitarian Bible aka King James Bible.

CLAUSE #1: In the beginning was the Word,
CLAUSE #2: and the Word was with God,
CLAUSE #3: and the Word was God.


Below is the same scripture from the New World Translation or NWT, published by Jehovah's Witnesses:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.


Before you start railing against the New Word Translation, you need to know that that is not the only Bible that made that correction at Clause #3. I found about four dozen other Bibles that made the identical correction at Clause #3 of John 1:1.

The Trinitarian translators purposely ignored the context and proceeded to capitalize the word God without the indefinite article "a" in front of it because they expected the gullible to ignore context. Notice part of the context that the gullible always ignore:


The very first clause debunks Christendom's Trinity, because it says the Word (Jesus) had a beginning. "In the beginning was the Word...."

According to Christendom's official definition of the Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are supposedly co-eternal.

Christendom's Trinity is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three persons, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2011/03/1 ... irtyni.htm


Clause #1 of John 1:1 says the Word had a beginning. An eternal person cannot have a beginning. Therefore, Clause #3 is a deliberate manipulation of scripture by Trinitarian translators.

[placebofactor]

I beg to differ that the Holy Spirit is just the force of the Father, as in Mat 12:31-32, speaks of any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. If one blasphemes the Father (Rev13:6) and will be forgiven, why to blaspheme the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven? That implied that the Holy Spirit isn't just the force of the Father but a separate distinct person of the Trinity. Bible lexicon defined "blasphemes", in Greek "- blasph"me" as to speak of impious irreverence to God.

If a person who claims to know the Scriptures and doesn't understand the difference between the Holy Spirit being called "He" not "It", or by changing "He" to "That one," they don't need to be teaching. The corrupt N.W.T. changed "He" to "that one" the only Bible in the history of the world that changes "He" to "that one." The Watchtower rejects 1 John 5:7 because it's only in a few manuscripts, yet they change He to "that one" and it's not in any manuscripts. They also changed John 1:1, another intentional corruption. And they add "Other" in Colossians 1:16, to strip Jesus of his divinity, claiming he was created. Don't talk about blasphemy to me, you'd better read Revelation 22 about adding and removing words from God's word.

The reason why the holy spirit is referred to as "he" in Trinitarian Bible translations is because those particular translators are attempting to give the impression that God's holy spirit is a person--which it is not. It is a possession, something that Jehovah God owns and controls.

Nowhere in the scriptures will you ever see the Holy Spirit doing anything on its own. It is only mentioned doing something when Jehovah the Father sends it to do his will.

Additionally, nowhere in the scriptures will you ever see it say that Jesus controls the holy spirit. Only Jehovah controls it, because it's his active force/his power that he sends forth to get things done. Jesus himself said as much. Notice Jesus' own words below.

Berean Literal Bible -- (John 14:26
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and will bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you." (John 14:25-26)


There's nothing wrong with referring to Jehovah's Holy Spirit as "That one." The only people upset about it are Trinitarians who insist on giving personhood to God's Holy Spirit/active force so they can continue pretending that Jehovah's holy spirit is the third person of their non-existent trinity god.

Let me tell you how ridiculous your comments are. If, as you falsely claim, the Holy Spirit is the breath of the Father, why not just say it was the Father? I am going to replace he with Father when it is referring to the Holy Spirit, and when Holy Spirit, I will replace it with the "Father." Now look at how foolish it is to claim the Holy Spirit is the Father.

John 14:26, "But the Comforter (the Father), which is the Father, whom the Father will send in my (Jesus) name, he (the Father) shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." How about this one:

John 16:26, "But when the Father is come, whom I (Jesus) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth (the Father) which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me (Jesus)."

John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Father of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth, for the Father shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:"

Verse 14, "He (the Father) shall glorify me (jesus): for the Father shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

[placebofactor]

I beg to differ that the Holy Spirit is just the force of the Father, as in Mat 12:31-32, speaks of any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. If one blasphemes the Father (Rev13:6) and will be forgiven, why to blaspheme the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven? That implied that the Holy Spirit isn't just the force of the Father but a separate distinct person of the Trinity. Bible lexicon defined "blasphemes", in Greek "- blasph"me" as to speak of impious irreverence to God.

If a person who claims to know the Scriptures and doesn't understand the difference between the Holy Spirit being called "He" not "It", or by changing "He" to "That one," they don't need to be teaching. The corrupt N.W.T. changed "He" to "that one" the only Bible in the history of the world that changes "He" to "that one." The Watchtower rejects 1 John 5:7 because it's only in a few manuscripts, yet they change He to "that one" and it's not in any manuscripts. They also changed John 1:1, another intentional corruption. And they add "Other" in Colossians 1:16, to strip Jesus of his divinity, claiming he was created. Don't talk about blasphemy to me, you'd better read Revelation 22 about adding and removing words from God's word.

The reason why the holy spirit is referred to as "he" in Trinitarian Bible translations is because those particular translators are attempting to give the impression that God's holy spirit is a person--which it is not. It is a possession, something that Jehovah God owns and controls.

Nowhere in the scriptures will you ever see the Holy Spirit doing anything on its own. It is only mentioned doing something when Jehovah the Father sends it to do his will.

Additionally, nowhere in the scriptures will you ever see it say that Jesus controls the holy spirit. Only Jehovah controls it, because it's his active force/his power that he sends forth to get things done. Jesus himself said as much. Notice Jesus' own words below.

Berean Literal Bible -- (John 14:26
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and will bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you." (John 14:25-26)


There's nothing wrong with referring to Jehovah's Holy Spirit as "That one." The only people upset about it are Trinitarians who insist on giving personhood to God's Holy Spirit/active force so they can continue pretending that Jehovah's holy spirit is the third person of their non-existent trinity god.

Let me tell you how ridiculous your comments are. If, as you falsely claim, the Holy Spirit is the breath of the Father, why not just say it was the Father? I am going to replace he with Father when it is referring to the Holy Spirit, and when Holy Spirit, I will replace it with the "Father." Now look at how foolish it is to claim the Holy Spirit is the Father.

John 14:26, "But the Comforter (the Father), which is the Father, whom the Father will send in my (Jesus) name, he (the Father) shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." How about this one:

John 16:26, "But when the Father is come, whom I (Jesus) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth (the Father) which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me (Jesus)."

John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Father of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth, for the Father shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:"

Verse 14, "He (the Father) shall glorify me (jesus): for the Father shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Neutral zone wrote, John 1:1 has three independent clauses, meaning all three portions separated by commas can stand alone as separate sentences. Notice John 1:1 below from a Trinitarian Bible aka King James Bible.

Commas, are a pause, and then a continuation of the same thought. "Phil ordered a pizza, and he then told them to put extra cheese on it. I went to the store, looked at a shelf full of books, then decided to buy the K.J.B.

N.W.T. "In (the) beginning the Word (Jesus) was," Ask yourself who is the Word? Verse 14, N.W.T. "The Word (Jesus) became flesh and resided among us."

"And the Word was with God" Don't talk your way out of that one. Now if the Word was in the beginning with his Father before the creation began, both of them came out of eternity, thus both are eternal, and only God can be eternal.

One more thing, I would be a bit more careful how you speak about the K.J.B. Bible. This work has been around for the past 413 years. God's word does not need your approval, and your comments are calling hundreds of millions of Christians who have passed before us either corrupt or stupid.

[placebofactor]

I beg to differ that the Holy Spirit is just the force of the Father, as in Mat 12:31-32, speaks of any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. If one blasphemes the Father (Rev13:6) and will be forgiven, why to blaspheme the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven? That implied that the Holy Spirit isn't just the force of the Father but a separate distinct person of the Trinity. Bible lexicon defined "blasphemes", in Greek "- blasph"me" as to speak of impious irreverence to God.

If a person who claims to know the Scriptures and doesn't understand the difference between the Holy Spirit being called "He" not "It", or by changing "He" to "That one," they don't need to be teaching. The corrupt N.W.T. changed "He" to "that one" the only Bible in the history of the world that changes "He" to "that one." The Watchtower rejects 1 John 5:7 because it's only in a few manuscripts, yet they change He to "that one" and it's not in any manuscripts. They also changed John 1:1, another intentional corruption. And they add "Other" in Colossians 1:16, to strip Jesus of his divinity, claiming he was created. Don't talk about blasphemy to me, you'd better read Revelation 22 about adding and removing words from God's word.

The reason why the holy spirit is referred to as "he" in Trinitarian Bible translations is because those particular translators are attempting to give the impression that God's holy spirit is a person--which it is not. It is a possession, something that Jehovah God owns and controls.

Nowhere in the scriptures will you ever see the Holy Spirit doing anything on its own. It is only mentioned doing something when Jehovah the Father sends it to do his will.

Additionally, nowhere in the scriptures will you ever see it say that Jesus controls the holy spirit. Only Jehovah controls it, because it's his active force/his power that he sends forth to get things done. Jesus himself said as much. Notice Jesus' own words below.

Berean Literal Bible -- (John 14:26
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and will bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you." (John 14:25-26)


There's nothing wrong with referring to Jehovah's Holy Spirit as "That one." The only people upset about it are Trinitarians who insist on giving personhood to God's Holy Spirit/active force so they can continue pretending that Jehovah's holy spirit is the third person of their non-existent trinity god.

Let me tell you how ridiculous your comments are. If, as you falsely claim, the Holy Spirit is the breath of the Father, why not just say it was the Father? I am going to replace he with Father when it is referring to the Holy Spirit, and when Holy Spirit, I will replace it with the "Father." Now look at how foolish it is to claim the Holy Spirit is the Father.

John 14:26, "But the Comforter (the Father), which is the Father, whom the Father will send in my (Jesus) name, he (the Father) shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." How about this one:

John 16:26, "But when the Father is come, whom I (Jesus) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth (the Father) which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me (Jesus)."

John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Father of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth, for the Father shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:"

Verse 14, "He (the Father) shall glorify me (jesus): for the Father shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Neutral zone wrote, John 1:1 has three independent clauses, meaning all three portions separated by commas can stand alone as separate sentences. Notice John 1:1 below from a Trinitarian Bible aka King James Bible.

Commas, are a pause, and then a continuation of the same thought. "Phil ordered a pizza, and he then told them to put extra cheese on it. I went to the store, looked at a shelf full of books, then decided to buy the K.J.B.

N.W.T. "In (the) beginning the Word (Jesus) was," Ask yourself who is the Word? Verse 14, N.W.T. "The Word (Jesus) became flesh and resided among us."

"And the Word was with God" Don't talk your way out of that one. Now if the Word was in the beginning with his Father before the creation began, both of them came out of eternity, thus both are eternal, and only God can be eternal.

One more thing, I would be a bit more careful how you speak about the K.J.B. Bible. This work has been around for the past 413 years. God's word does not need your approval, and your comments are calling hundreds of millions of Christians who have passed before us either corrupt or stupid.

No ancient manuscript changes the grammar to reflect the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force. The Greek text uses masculine pronouns and verbs that imply personal agency, such as:

He will teach ()

He will bear witness ()

He will guide (-)

Concerning John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16;13. I went t A.I. and asked, "are there any ancient manuscripts that translate these three verses like the watchtower has?

Here's A.I. response. "No ancient manuscript changes the grammar to reflect the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force. The Greek text uses masculine pronouns and verbs that imply personal agency, such as:

He will teach ()

He will bear witness ()

He will guide (-)

These grammatical choices reflect personhood, not impersonal force. Jehovahs Witnesses argue that this is grammatical personification, not theological personhood"but thats an interpretive stance, not a manuscript-based one."

[NeutralZone]

Let me tell you how ridiculous your comments are. If, as you falsely claim, the Holy Spirit is the breath of the Father, why not just say it was the Father? I am going to replace he with Father when it is referring to the Holy Spirit, and when Holy Spirit, I will replace it with the "Father." Now look at how foolish it is to claim the Holy Spirit is the Father.

John 14:26, "But the Comforter (the Father), which is the Father, whom the Father will send in my (Jesus) name, he (the Father) shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." How about this one:

John 16:26, "But when the Father is come, whom I (Jesus) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth (the Father) which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me (Jesus)."

John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Father of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth, for the Father shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:"

Verse 14, "He (the Father) shall glorify me (jesus): for the Father shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Neutral zone wrote, John 1:1 has three independent clauses, meaning all three portions separated by commas can stand alone as separate sentences. Notice John 1:1 below from a Trinitarian Bible aka King James Bible.

Commas, are a pause, and then a continuation of the same thought. "Phil ordered a pizza, and he then told them to put extra cheese on it. I went to the store, looked at a shelf full of books, then decided to buy the K.J.B.

N.W.T. "In (the) beginning the Word (Jesus) was," Ask yourself who is the Word? Verse 14, N.W.T. "The Word (Jesus) became flesh and resided among us."

"And the Word was with God" Don't talk your way out of that one. Now if the Word was in the beginning with his Father before the creation began, both of them came out of eternity, thus both are eternal, and only God can be eternal.

One more thing, I would be a bit more careful how you speak about the K.J.B. Bible. This work has been around for the past 413 years. God's word does not need your approval, and your comments are calling hundreds of millions of Christians who have passed before us either corrupt or stupid.

No ancient manuscript changes the grammar to reflect the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force. The Greek text uses masculine pronouns and verbs that imply personal agency, such as:

He will teach ()

He will bear witness ()

He will guide (-)

Concerning John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16;13. I went t A.I. and asked, "are there any ancient manuscripts that translate these three verses like the watchtower has?

Here's A.I. response. "No ancient manuscript changes the grammar to reflect the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force. The Greek text uses masculine pronouns and verbs that imply personal agency, such as:

He will teach ()

He will bear witness ()

He will guide (-)

These grammatical choices reflect personhood, not impersonal force. Jehovahs Witnesses argue that this is grammatical personification, not theological personhood"but thats an interpretive stance, not a manuscript-based one."

Instead of posting three responses back-to-back, like you did above (a clear sign of desperation), tell you what: Go back and read what I told you at Post 102. Below is the weblink that will take you directly to it.

viewtopic.php?p=1174241#p1174241

Read it several times if necessary, and then perhaps it will sink in that Jehovah's holy spirit is a possession, not a person. It is Jehovah God's active force that only Jehovah controls. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus ever control the holy spirit, and nowhere in scripture does the holy spirit ever do anything on its own.

If you can't grasp that, there's nothing anyone can do to help you to get over your attachment to Christendom's non-existent Trinity god.

[NeutralZone]

Let me tell you how ridiculous your comments are. If, as you falsely claim, the Holy Spirit is the breath of the Father, why not just say it was the Father? I am going to replace he with Father when it is referring to the Holy Spirit, and when Holy Spirit, I will replace it with the "Father." Now look at how foolish it is to claim the Holy Spirit is the Father.

John 14:26, "But the Comforter (the Father), which is the Father, whom the Father will send in my (Jesus) name, he (the Father) shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." How about this one:

John 16:26, "But when the Father is come, whom I (Jesus) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth (the Father) which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me (Jesus)."

John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Father of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth, for the Father shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:"

Verse 14, "He (the Father) shall glorify me (jesus): for the Father shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The falsehood exists in your imagination, placebofactor, because at no time did I indicate such a thing. The holy spirit is not the breath of the Father. It is Jehovah's active force that he uses to get things done. I've told you that repeatedly. So don't come up here on this website attributing falsehoods to me that I never mentioned.

[NeutralZone]

DELETE

[placebofactor]

Let me tell you how ridiculous your comments are. If, as you falsely claim, the Holy Spirit is the breath of the Father, why not just say it was the Father? I am going to replace he with Father when it is referring to the Holy Spirit, and when Holy Spirit, I will replace it with the "Father." Now look at how foolish it is to claim the Holy Spirit is the Father.

John 14:26, "But the Comforter (the Father), which is the Father, whom the Father will send in my (Jesus) name, he (the Father) shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." How about this one:

John 16:26, "But when the Father is come, whom I (Jesus) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth (the Father) which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me (Jesus)."

John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Father of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth, for the Father shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:"

Verse 14, "He (the Father) shall glorify me (jesus): for the Father shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The falsehood exists in your imagination, placebofactor, because at no time did I indicate such a thing. The holy spirit is not the breath of the Father. It is Jehovah's active force that he uses to get things done. I've told you that repeatedly. So don't come up here on this website attributing falsehoods to me that I never mentioned.

Please enlighten us. What is the Father's active force like? Who or what does it? What is it? The active force is in your imagination, not mine. If you can't tell us specifically what it is, and how he does it, I will accept your apology. You Witnesses have told me for over 40 years that the Holy Spirit is the breath of the Father, SPIRIT = BREATH. Make up your mind!